m-i drilling fluids uk v. dynamic air et. al

7/30/2019 M-I Drilling Fluids UK v. Dynamic Air Et. Al.

1/23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

M-I DRILLING FLUIDS UK LTD.Plaintiff,

V.

DYNAMIC AIR fNC., ANDDYNAMIC AIR LTDA.Defendants.

l3-cv- ,lgs, ilDa|s"tL)COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENTPlaintiff M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. for its Complaint, alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTIONl. This is an action brought by M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. ("MIDF UK" or

"Plaintiff') against Dynamic Air Inc. and Dynamic Air Ltda. (collectively, "Defendants")for Defendants' infringement of patents owned by MIDF UK. In particular, Defendantshave infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,702,539 (the "539 Patent"), 6,709,217 (the "2I7Patent"),7,033,I24 (the"I24 Patent"),7,186,062 (the "062 Patent"), and7,544,018 (the"018 Patent") (collectively, the "Asserted Patents"). This action arises under the patentlaws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. $ 100, et seq.

ASEP - I 201

U.S DISTRTCT


2/23

PARTIES2. MIDF UK is a foreign private limited company existing under the laws of

the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business at Porca Quay, Aberdeen,Aberdeenshire, ABl l 5DQ, United Kingdom.

3. Defendant Dynamic Air Inc. ("Dynamic Air") is a corporation existingunder the laws of the State of Minnesota, with its principal place of business at 1125Willow Lake Blvd, Saint Paul, MN 55110.

4. Defendant Dynamic Air Ltda. is a foreign corporation existing under thelaws of Brazil, with its principal place of business at Av. Mathias Lopes 5.821, 12960-000 Nazare Paulista 12960-000 Sp, Brazil. Upon information and belief, Dynamic AirT.tda. is a subsidiary of Dynamic Air.

JURISDICTION ANP VENUE5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331

and 1338(a).6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dynamic Air because Dynamic

Air is incorporated in Minnesota, maintains its principal place of business within theState of Minnesota, ffid Dynamic Air regularly conducts business within the State ofMiruresota

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dynamic Air Ltda. becauseDynamic Air Ltda., upon information and belief, conducts regular and systematicbusiness with at least its corporate parent, Dynamic Air, within the State of Minnesota.

-2-


3/23

8. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Dynamic Air Ltda. becauseDynamic Air Ltda., upon information and belief, operates as an instrumentality or alter-ego of Dynamic Air such.that Dynamic Air Ltda. is vicariously subject to personaljurisdiction in this Court based on Dynamic Air's contacts and operations in Minnesota.For example, upon information and belief, Dynamic Air holds out Dynamic Air Ltda. asan international location and sales office for Dynamic Air. Dynamic Air Ltda. shares acommon website with Dynamic Air and uses substantially similar promotional materialsand advertisements. Upon information and belief; Dynamic Air and Dynamic Air Ltda.offer the same products and services, all marketed and sold under the common DynamicAir@ brand.

9. In the event that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction by virtue ofthe above, this Court nonetheless has personal jurisdiction over Dynamic Air Ltda.pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) because this case arises under federallaw, Dynamic Air Ltda. is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of generaljurisdiction, and Dynamic Air Ltda. has regularly engaged in business in the UnitedStates and purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in theUnited States by installing and operating conveying systems for drill cuttings currentlyinstalled on the ships HOS Resolution and HOS Pinnacle, U.S.-flagged ships, which arepart of U.S. territory. These activities infringe the Asserted Patents.10. Venue is proper in this District for Dynamic Air Inc. under 35 U.S.C.1391(c)(2) and 35 U.S.C. $ 1400(b) because Dynamic Air Inc. resides within thisDistrict.

-3-


4/23

11. Venue is proper in this District for Dynamic Air Ltda. under 35 U.S.C. $1391(c)(2) and (3) and 35 U.S.C. $ 1400(b) because Dynamic Air Ltda. is subject to thisQourt's personal jurisdiction and because Dynamic Air Ltda. is not resident in the UnitedStates.

BACKgROUNpMIDF UK, CLEANCUT@ TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ASSERTEDPATENTS

12. MIDF UK is a leading supplier of drilling fluid systems and equipmentengineered to improve drilling performance by anticipating fluids-related problems, fluidsystems and specialty tools designed to optimize wellbore productivity, productiontechnology solutions to maximize production rates, and environmental solutions thatsafely manage waste volumes generated in both drilling and production operations.

13. When oil wells are drilled, the subterranean formation cuttings from thedrilling operation are brought to the.drilling rig on the surface. An example of such adrilling rig is an offshore drilling platform. When brought to the surface, drill cuttingsare in slurry with drilling fluid, and after some degree of separation from the drillingfluid, form a very thick heavy paste. Drill cuttings must be disposed of in anenvironmentally-safe way and are typically transported off of the rig for processingelsewhere. Often times, ships will receive drill cuttings from the oil rig and transportthem to shore for processing.

14. One of the products and services that MIDF IIK offers its customers in theUnited States is the CLEANCUT@ pneumatic drill cuttings collections and containment

-4-


5/23

system, which is the most widely-used technology for safely handling drilling wasteoffshore. CLEANCUT@ has been used to effectively complete hundreds of well sectionswith nearly 2 million barrels of cuttings safely collected and transported.15. The Asserted Patents are directed to methods, systems and apparatuses usedfor collecting, conveying, transporting, and/or storing non-free flowing pastes, such asdrill cuttings, in an environmentally-safe way. The Asserted Patents provide a novel wayto pneumatically convey non-free flowing pastes, such as drill cuttings, using compressedgas and one or more vessels or containers.

16. MIDF * t1the owner by assignment of all of the Asserted Patents.17. The 539 Patent, entitled Pneumatic Conveying, was duly and lawfully

issued on March 9,2004. MIDF UK is the current owner of all rights, title, and interestin the 539 Patent. A true and correct copy of the 539 Patent is affached hereto as ExhibitA.

18. The 217 Patent, entitled Method of Pneumatically Conveying Non-FreeFlowing Paste, was duly and lawfully issued on March 23,2004,. MIDF UK is thecurrent owner of all rights, title, and interest in the 2I7 Patent A true and'correct copy ofthe2l7 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

19. The I24 Patent, entitled Method and Apparatus for Pneumatic Conveyingof Drilt Cuttings, was duly and lawfully issued on April 25, 2006. MIDF UK is thecurrent owner of all rights, title, and interest in the 124 Patent A true and correct copy ofthe 124 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

-5-


6/23

20. The 062 Patent, entitled Method and Apparatus for Pneumatic Conveyingof Drill Cuttings, was duly and lawfully issued on March 6, 2007. MIDF UK is thecurrent owner of all rights, title, and interest in the 062 Patent. A trup and correct copy ofthe 062 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

21. The 018 Patent, entitled Apparatus for Pneumatic Conveying of DrillCuttings, was duly and lawfully issued on June 9,2009. MIDF UK is the current ownerof all rights, title, and interest in the 018 Patent. A true and correct copy of the 018Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

II. DYNAMIC AIR AND ITS INF'RINGING CONVEYING SYSTEM22. Defendants specialize in pneumatic conveying of dry bulk solids for the

processing industries.23. Upon information and belief, Defendants design, sell and operate

pneumatic conveyance methods, systems and apparatuses that use pneumatic means totransfer drill cuttings off an offshore oil rig for storage and disposal.

24. Sometime between October 2011 and January 2012, Dynamic Air Ltda.submitted a bid in response to a Request for Proposal ("RFP"; from Petr6leo BrasileiroS.A. ("Petrobras") for a pneumatic conveyance system that could be used to remove drillcuttings from an oil rig. MIDF UK's sister company and customel, M-I Swaco do Brasil- Comercio, Servicos E Mineracao Ltda. C'M-I Brazil"),submitted a bid in response tothe RFP as well. Dynamic Air Ltda. submitted its bid soon after as many as eightemployees of M-I Brazil who worked on similar technolory left M-I Brazil to joinDynamic Air Ltda. On information and beliel neither Dynamic Air nor Dynamic Air

-6-


7/23

Ltda. had ever designed a pneumatic conveyance system for the transfer of drill cuttingsprior to this. Dynamic Air Ltda. was the winner of the bidding process, and, uponinformation and belief, thereafter along with Dynamic Air designed, sold and operatedsuch a system on the HOS Resolution, a U.S.-flagged ship, that pneumatically conveysdrill cuttings from off-shore oil rig P-59, located off the coast of Vitoria, Brazil, in amanner that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Defendants then transport and conveythe drill cuttings for disposal and/or further processing.

25. On or around February 2013, Dynamic Air Ltda. employees used such asystem to pneumatically convey drill cuttings onto and off of the HOS Resolution andhave continued this infringing activity since that time.

26. On or around August 2013, Dynamic Air Ltda. installed a similarpneumatic conveyance system aboard the HOS Pinnacle, a U.S.-flagged ship, whichpneumatically conveys drill cuttings from offshore rig P-I[, located off the coast ofVitoria, Brazil, in a manner that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Defendants thentransport and convey the drill cuttings for disposal and/or further processing. Uponinformation and belief, Dynamic Air Ltda. has also installed and operates a similarpneumatic conveyance system aboard the P-I[ rig itself.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS27. MIDF IIK owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to

the Asserted Patents.28. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe each of the Asserted

Patents by engaging in acts constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C. S 271, including-7 -


8/23

but not necessarily limited to one or more of making, using, selling and offering to sell inthe United States, and importing intb the United States, certain material conveyingsystems, including, but not limited to conveying systems for drill cuttings currentlyinstalled on the U.S.-flagged ships HOS Resolution and HOS Pinnacle, which are part ofthe United States.

29. Defendants have also contributed to and are contributing to theinfringement of each of the Asserted Patents by making, using, selling and offering to sellin the United States, and importing into the United States, certain material conveyingsystems that have no substantial non-infringing uses, including, but not limited toconveying systems for drill cuttings currently installed on the U.S.-flagged ships HOSResolution and HOS Pinnacle. As described infra, Defendants have done so withknowledge of the Asserted Patents.

30. Upon information and belief, Defendants have also induced, and continueto induce, the infringement of each of the Asserted Patents by instructing others to utilizepneumatic conveyance systems, such as the ones aboard the HOS Resolution and HOSPinnacle, in an infringing way. As described infra, Defendants have done so withknowledge of the Asserted Patents and with the specific intent that the end users operatethe systems in an infringing manner.

COUNT ITNFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,702,53931. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-

30 as though fully set forth herein.-8-


9/23

32. Defendants have directly infringed and are infringing the 539 Patent in thisDistrict and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, offering for sale, selling,and importing, without authority, products and services including pneumatic conveyancesystems, such as the pneumatic conveyance systems aboard the HOS Resolution andHOS Pinnacle.

33. Defendants have also contributed and are contributing to the infringementof the 539 Patent by others in this District and elsewhere in the United States. The directinfringement occurs by the activities of any end users of the pneumatic conveyancesystems, including individual Defendants and third parties. Upon information and belief,Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributory infringement withknowledge of the 539 Patent and knolvledge that the pneumatic conveyance systems wereespecially made or especially adapted for infringing use of the 539 Patent, and were notstaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.That is, Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems are specifically designed to convey,store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way.

34. Specifically, Defendants have been aware of the 539 patent through manychannels including their general knowledge of the industry and of Plaintiff s operations.Defendants and MIDF UK's customer, M-I Brazil, are close competitors in the oil fieldindustry and specifically competed against each other in bidding for a pneumaticconveyance system requested by Petrobras. Further, several ex-M-I Brazil employeeswith intimate knowledge of Plaintiffs CLEANCUT@ system and the patents in suit are

-9 -


10/23

now employed by Dynamic Air Ltda. and took this knowledge with them to Dynamic AirLtda. and its parent Dynamic Air Inc.

35. Defendants have also had knowledge of the 539 patent.as of the August 29,2013 notice letter sent to Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute to theinfringement of the claims of the 539 patent.

3.6. Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 539Patent by others in this District and elsewhere in the United States. The direct\infringement occurs by the activities of end users, including individual Defendants andtfriid parties, of Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems. Upon information andbelief Defendants performed the acts that constitute the induced infringement withknowledge of the 539 Patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the inducedacts would constitute infringement.

37. As shown above in paragraphs 34 and 35, Defendants have had knowledgeof the 539 patent at least as of Augu st29,2013i,.

38. Despite this knowledge, Defendants have, upon information and belief,specifically instructed end users to operate Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems toconvey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way. Upon information andbelief, Defendants design and set up the pneumatic conveyance systems on ships such as

the HOS Resolution and HOS Pinnacle and provide end users specific instructions onhow to operate the pneumatic conveyance systems in an infringing way.

39. Defendants' infringement of the 539 Patent has caused and continues tocause damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants have

- 10 -


11/23

continued to infringe the 539 patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patentand so such infringement is willful and Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.

40. Defendants' acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, willcontinue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiff for which there is noadequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue toinfringe the 539 Patent.

41. Defendants' infringement of the 539 Patent is exceptional and entitlesPlaintiff to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. $285.

, COUNT IITNFRTNGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,709,217

42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-41 as though fully set forth herein.


44. Defendants haveinfringement of the 217 PatentStates. The direct infringementindividual Defendants and third

also contributed to and are contributing to theby others in this District and elsewhere in the Unitedoccurs by the activities of any end users, includingparties, of the pneumatic conveyance systems. Upon

- 1l -


12/23

information and belief, Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributoryinfringement with knowledge of the 217 Patent and knowledge that the pneumaticconveyance systems were especially made or especially adapted for infringing use of the217 Patent, and were not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable forsubstantial non-infringing use. That is, Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems werespecifically designed to convey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an inflinging way.

45. Specifically, Defendants have been aware of the 217 patent through manycharurels including their general knowledge of the industry and of Plaintiff s operations.Defendants and MIDF UK's customer, M-I Brazil, are close competitors in the oil fieldindustry and specifically competed against each other in bidding for a pneumaticconveyance system requested by Petrobras. Further, several ex-M-I Brazil employeeswith intimate knowledge of Plaintiff s CLEANCUT@ system and the patents in suit arenow employed by Dynamic Air Ltda. and took this knowledge with them to Dynamic AirLtda. and its parent Dynamic Air Inc.

46., Defendants have also had knowledge of the 217 patent as of the August 29,2013 notice letter sent to Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute to theinfringement of the claims of the 217 patent.

47 . Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 2I7Patent by others in this District and elsewhere in the United States. The directinfringement occurs by the activities of end users, including individual Defendants andthird parties, of Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems. Upon information andbelief, Defendants performed the acts that constitute the induced infringement with

-12-


13/23

knowledge of the 217 Patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the inducedacts would constitute infringement.

48. As shown above in paragraphs 45 and 46, Defendants have had knowledgeof the 217 patent at least as of August29,20l3.

49. Despite this knowledge, Defendants .have, upon information and belief,specifically instructed end users, including individual Defendants and third parties, tooperate Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems to convey, store, and/or transportdrill cuttings in an infringing way. Upon information and belief, Defendants design andset up the pneumatic conveyance systems on ships such as the HOS Resolution and HOSPinnacle and provide end users with specific instructions on how to operate thepneumatic conveyance systems in an infringing way.

50. Defendants' infringement of the 217 Patent has caused and continues tocause damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants havecontinued to infringe the 217 patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patentand so such infringement is willful and Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.

51. Defendants' acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, willcontinue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiff for which there is noadequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue toinfringe the 217 Patent.52. Defendants' infringement of the 217 Patent is exceptional and entitlesPlaintiff to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. S285.

-13-


14/23

COUNT IIIINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7'033'124

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs l-52 as though fully set forth herein.

54. Defendants have directly infringed and are infringing the l}4Patent in thisDistrict and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, offering for sale, selling,and importing, without authority, products and services including pneumatic conveyancesystems, such as the pneumatic conveyance systems aboard the HOS Resolution andHOS Piruracle.

55. Defendants have also contributed to and are contributing to theinfringement of the 124 Patent by others in this District and elsewhere in the UnitedStates. The direct infringement occurs by the activities of any end users, includingindividual Defendants and third parties, of the pneumatic conveyance systems. Uponinformation and belief, Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributoryinfringement with knowledge of the !24 Patent and knowledge that the pneumaticconveyance systems were especially made or especially adapted for infringing use of the124 Patent, ffid were not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable forsubstantial non-infringing use. That is, Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems werespecifically designed to convey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way.56. Specifically, Defendants have been aware of the 124 patent through manychannels including their general knowledge of the industry and of Plaintiffls operations.Defendants and MIDF UK's customer, M-I Brazil, are close competitors in the oil field

-14-


15/23

industry and specifically competed against each other in bidding for a pneumaticconveyance system requested by Petrobras. Further, several ex-M-I Brazil employeeswith intimate knowledge of Plaintiff s CLEANCUT@ system and the patents in suit arenow employed by Dynamic Air Ltda. and took this knowledge with them to Dynamic AirLtda. and its parent Dynamic Air Inc.

57. Defendants have also had knowledge of the 124 patent as of the August 29,2013 notice letter sent to Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute to theinfringement of the claims of the I24 patent

58. Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 124Patent by others in this District and elsewhere in the United States. The directinfringement occurs by the activities of end users, including individual Defendants andthird parties, of the accused products. Upon information and belief Defendantsperformed the acts that constitute the induced infringement with knowledge of the 124Patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts would constituteinfringement.

59. As shown above in paragraphs 56 and 57, Defendants have had knowledgeof the 124 patentat least as of August29,20l3.

60. Despite this knowledge, Defendantl have, upon information and belief,specifically instructed end users to operate Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems to'convey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way. Upon information andbelief, Defendants design and set up the pneumatic conveyance systems on ships such as

-15-


16/23

the HOS Resolution and HOS Pinnacle and provide end users with specific instructionson how to operate the systems in an infringing way.

61. Defendants' infringement of the 124 Patent has caused and continues tocause damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants havecontinued to infringe the 124 patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patentand so such infringement is willful and Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.

62. Defendants' acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, willcontinue to cause, ineparable injury and damage to Plaintiff for which there is noadequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this.Court, Defendants will continue toinfringe the 124 Patent.

63. Defendants' infringement of the 124 Patent is exceptional and entitlesPlaintiff to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C $285.

COUNT IVTNFRTNGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,186,062

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs l-63 as though fully set forth herein.' 65. Defendants have directly infringed and are infringing the 062 Patent in thisDistrict and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, offering for sale, selling,and importing, without authority, products and services including pneumatic conveyancesystems, such as the pneumatic conveyance systems aboard the HOS Resolution andHOS Pinnacle.

-16-


17/23

66. Defendants have also contributed to and are contributing to theinfringement of the A62 Patent by others in this Districi and elsewhere in the UnitedStates. The direct inftingement occurs by the activities of any end users, includingindividual Defendants and third parties, of the pneumatic conveyance systems. Uponinformation and belief, Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributoryinfringement with knowledge of the 062 Patent and knowledge that the pneumaticconveyance systems were especially made or especially adapted for infringing use of the062 Patent, ffid were not staple articles. or commodities of commerce suitable forsubstantial non-infringing use. That is, Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems werespecifically designed to convey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way.

67. Specifically, Defendants have been aware of the 062 patent through manychannels including their general knowledge of the industry and of Plaintiff s operations.Defendants and MIDF UK's customer, MJ Brazil, are close competitors in the oil fieldindustry and specifically competed against each other in bidding for a pneumaticconveyance system requested by Petrobras. Further, several ex-M-I Brazil employeeswith intimate knowledge of Plaintifls CLEANCUT@ system and the patents in suit arenow employed by Dynamic Air Ltda. and took this knowledge with them to Dynamic AirLtda. and its parent Dynamic Air Inc.

68. Defendants have also had knowledge of the 062 patent as of the August 29,2013 notice letter sent to Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute to theinfringement of the claims of the 062 patent.

t7-


18/23

69. Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 062Patent by others in this District and elsewhere in the United States. The directinfringement occurs by the activities of end users, including individual Defendants andthird parties, of the accused products. Upon information and belief, Defendantsperformed the acts that constitute the induced infringement with knowledge of the 062Patent and with the knowledse or willful blindness that the induced acts would constituteinfringement.

70. As shown above in paragraphs 67 and 68, Defendants have had knowledgeof the 062 patent at least as of August29,2013.

71. Despite this knowledge, Defendants have, upon information and beliefspecifically instructed end users, including individual Defendants and third parties, tooperate Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems to convey, store, and/or transportdrill cuttings in an infringing way. Upon information and belief, Defendants design andset up the pneumatic conveyance systems on ships such as the HOS Resolution and HOSPinnacle and provide end users with specific instructions on how to operate thepneurnatic conveyance systems in an infringing way.

72. Defendanti' infringement of the 062 Patent has caused and continues tocause damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants havecontinued to infringe the 062patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patentand so such infringement is willful and Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.

73. Defendants' acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, willcontinue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiff for which there is no

-18-


19/23

adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue toinfringe the 062Patent.


COUNT VINFRTNGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,544,018

75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs l-74 as though fully set forth herein.


77. Defendants have also contributed to and are contributing to theinfringement of the 018 Patent by others in this District and elsewhere in the UnitedStates. The direct infringement occurs by the activities of any end users, includingindividual Defendants and third parties, of the pneumatic conveyance systems. Uponinformation and belief, Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributoryinfringement with knowledge of the 018 Patent and knowledge that the pneumaticconveyance systems were especially made or especially adapted for infringing use of the018 Patent, ffid were not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for

-t9-


20/23

substantial non-infringing use. That is, Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems werespecifically designed to convey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way.

78. Specifically, Defendants have been aware of the 018 patent through manychannels including their general knowledge of the industry and of Plaintiff s operations.Defendants and MIDF UK's customer, M-I Brazil, are close competitors in the oil fieldindustry and specifically competed against each other in bidding for a pneumaticconveyance system requested by Petrobras. Further, several ex-M-I Brazil employeeswith intimate knowledge of Plaintiff s CLEANCUT@ system and the patents in suit arenow employed by Dynamic Air Ltda. and took this knowledge with them to Dynamic AirLtda. and its parent Dynamic Air Inc.

79. Defendants have also had knowledge of the 018 patent as of the August 29,2013 notice letter sent to Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute to theinfringement of the claims of the 018 patent

80.. Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 018Patent by others in this District and elsewhere in the United States. The directinfringement occurs by the activities of end users, including individual Defendants andthird parties, of the accused products. Upon information and belief, Defendantsperformed the acts that constitute the induced infringement with knowledge of the 018Patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts would constituteinfringement.

81. As shown above in paragraphs 78 and79, Defendants have had knowledgeof the 018 patent at least as of August29,2013.

-20 -


21/23

82. Despite this knowledge, Defendants have, upon information and beliefspecifically instructed end users, inc.ludirig individual Defendants and third parties, tooperate Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems to convey, store, and/or transportdrill cuttings in an infringing way. Upon information and belief, Defendants design andset up the pneumatic conveyance systems on ships such as the HOS Resolution and HOSPinnacle and provide end users with specific instructions on how to operate thepneumatic systems in an infringing way.

83. Defendants' infringement of the 018 Patent has caused and continues iocause damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants havecontinued to infringe the 018 patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patentand so such infringement is willful and Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.

84. Defendants' acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, willcontinue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiff for which there is noadequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue toinfringe the 018 Patent.


DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL86. Pursuant to Rule 3S(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffdemands atrialby jury of all issues so triable.

-21


22/23

PRAYER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and seeks relief against Defendants as

follows:(a) That the Asserted Patents have been and continue to be directly and/orindirectly infringed by each of the Defendants, and that such infringement has beenwilltul;

(b) That the Asserted Patents are not invalid and are not unenforceable;(c) For all damages sustained as a result of each Defendant's infringement of

the Asserted Patents as herein alleged, including an award of enhanced damages pursuantto 35 U.S.C. $ 284;

(d) For pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest at the maximum rateallowed by law;

(e) For a permanent injunction enjoining each Defendant, its officers, agents,seryants, employees and all other persons acting in concert or participation with it fromfurther infringement, contributory infringement, and inducement of infringement of theAsserted Patents;

(f) For an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. $ 2S5 or as otherwisepermitted by law;

(g) For all costs of suit; and(h) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.Dated: August 30,2013 By: s/ Eric H. ChadwickEric H. Chadwick (#248,769)[email protected] \

-22 -


23/23

PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN. P.A.4800IDS Center80 South Eighth StreetMinneapolis, Mirrnes ota 5 5 402-21 0QTelephone : (612) 349 -57 40Facsimile : (6 12) 3 49 -9266ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTTFF

OF COUNSEL:Scott J. Pivnickscott.pivnick@alston. comAdam D. Swainadam. [email protected] Wilsonbenn.wilson@alston. comALSTON & BIRD LLPThe Atlantic Building950 F Street, NW

,Washington, DC 20004Tel; (202) 239-3300Fax: (202)239-3333Patrick Flinnpatrick.fl inn@alston. comDavid Kuklewiczdav i d. kukl ew icz@alston. c omALSTON & BIRD LLPOne Atlantic Center1201 W. Peachtree StreetAtlanta, Georgia 30309Tel.: (404) 881-7000Fax: (404) 253-8756

-23 -

m-i drilling fluids uk v. dynamic air et. al

Documents